John Wesley's Belief in an Intermediate State After Death

Question: What happens immediately after a person dies? Do they go directly to heaven or hell or do they go to a holding place until Christ returns to earth for the final judgment? Answer: The basic beliefs of United Methodists can be found in the Book of Discipline in Our Doctrinal Standards and General Rules. However, mention of "hell" and "heaven" as serious afterlife issues cannot be found in this section or any other part of the Book of Discipline.

Methodist Doctrine: The Essentials by Ted A. Campbell says, "The Methodist Articles of Religion, following the teachings of the Reformation, rejected the medieval Catholic idea of purgatory as a place where the souls of those who have died in Christ could be aided or helped by the prayers of the living. John Wesley himself believed in an intermediate state between and the final judgment [sic], where those who rejected Christ would be aware of their coming doom (not yet pronounced), and believers would share in the "bosom of Abraham" or "paradise," even continuing to grow in holiness there. This belief, however, is not formally affirmed in Methodist doctrinal standards, which reject the idea of purgatory but beyond that maintain silence on what lies between death and the last judgment."
[ link ]

United Methodists have no official doctrine on “heaven” or “hell” except for this confessional statement: “We believe in the resurrection of the dead, the righteous to life eternal and the wicked to endless condemnation.” . . .

John Wesley believed in the intermediate state between death and the final judgment “where believers would share in the ‘bosom of Abraham’ or ‘paradise,’ even continuing to grow in holiness there,” writes Ted Campbell, a professor at Perkins School of Theology, in his 1999 book Methodist Doctrine: The Essentials (Abingdon). That view has not been officially affirmed by the church.

He always made a point of preaching on "The Communion of Saints" on All Saints' Day. He thoroughly realized the doctrine of the Intermediate State, and to his dying day used to speak of his departed Christian friends, not as "having gone to heaven," in the popular phraseology, but as being in Paradise, or in Abraham's bosom.

You affect to be deemed a minister of the national Church. Why then do you decry her doctrines, and, as far as in you lies, sap her discipline? That you decry her doctrines needs no proof: witness, for example, the wide discrepancy between her decisions and yours on the articles of freewill, justification, predestination, perseverance, and sinless perfection; to say nothing concerning your new-fangled doctrine of the intermediate state of departed souls.

But what is the essential part of heaven? Undoubtedly it is To see God: To know God: To love God. We shall then know both his Nature, and his works of creation and providence, and of redemption. Even in paradise, in the intermediate state between death and the resurrection, we shall learn more concerning these in an hour, than we could in an age, during our stay in the body. We cannot tell indeed how we shall then exist, or what kind or organs we shall have: the soul will not be encumbered with flesh and blood; but probably it will have some sort of ethereal vehicle, even before God clothes us "with our nobler house of empyrean light."

Decisions made during life were therefore inseparably connected to what came after life. Upon death, according to Wesley, the souls of the deceased would enter an intermediate, penultimate state in which they would remain until reunited with the body at the resurrection of the dead. In that state variously identified as "the ante-chamber of heaven," "Abraham's bosom," and "paradise," . . .

But is the subsequent account merely a parable, or a real history? It has been believed by many, and roundly asserted, to be a mere parable, because of one or two circumstances therein, which are not easy to be accounted for. In particular, it is hard to conceive, how a person in hell could hold conversation with one in paradise. But, admitting we cannot account for this, will it overbalance an express assertion of our Lord: "There was," says our Lord, "a certain rich man." -- Was there not? Did such a man never exist? "And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus."- -Was there, or was there not? Is it not bold enough, positively to deny what our blessed Lord positively affirms? Therefore, we cannot reasonably doubt, but the whole narration, with all its circumstances, is exactly true. And Theophylact (one of the ancient commentators on the Scriptures) observes upon the text, that, "according to the tradition of the Jews, Lazarus lived at Jerusalem.

17 comments:

So what. If Wesley believed that Abraham's Bosom didn't cease to exist and the souls of the righteous go there until the Resurrection, he still didn't believe that the "intermediate state" was purgatory. Some (if not most) Protestant denominations believe that Abraham's Bosom was existent until the Ascension and, at one time, held the souls of the OT saints. Unless I miss my guess, I believe Catholicism teaches the same and believes it is non-existent today as well.

It shows that prominent Protestants believe in a state other than heaven or hell after death, and after the death of Christ. That was my primary goal for posting it.

Note also, however, that source #1 stated about Wesley's view: "believers would share in the 'bosom of Abraham' or 'paradise,' even continuing to grow in holiness there."

This notion would be absolutely anathema to Baptist / Reformed types; even to Lutherans, too, I think.

Thirdly, being the provocateur and "theological rabble-rouser" that I am, I think it is good to know these obscure facts that would be very difficult to learn in Methodist environments, just as many Lutherans have never heard lots of things I have discovered about Luther and posted online.

It shows that prominent Protestants believe in a state other than heaven or hell after death, and after the death of Christ. That was my primary goal for posting it.

It sort of "begs the question" don't you think? Because, for those familiar with the concept of Abraham's Bosom, we know that it wasn't purgatorial. And it doesn't seem like this was the case with Wesley either. I know you will say that you're not bringing purgatory into this, but it's not hard to see that this is the reason why you posted it to begin with.

Note also, however, that source #1 stated about Wesley's view: "believers would share in the 'bosom of Abraham' or 'paradise,' even continuing to grow in holiness there."

So, you are trying to provoke a purgatorial thought into this. Did Wesley believe that growing in holiness involved suffering as one would do in purgatory? And since he based it on Luke 16, I'm sure he was aware of the contrast between the "hell of the damned" (for lack of a better term), where the Rich Man was in torment (vss.23,25), and Abraham's Bosom, where Lazarus was comforted (vs.25).

This notion would be absolutely anathema to Baptist / Reformed types; even to Lutherans, too, I think.

I don't know how each would view the concept of Abraham's Bosom, but I would fathom to think that they wouldn't hold this against Brother Wesley :-), especially since, within his context, it doesn't seem that he held to a purgatorial view of Abraham's Bosom, but a nurturing, comforting, edenic realm.

Thirdly, being the provocateur and "theological rabble-rouser" that I am, I think it is good to know these obscure facts that would be very difficult to learn in Methodist environments, just as many Lutherans have never heard lots of things I have discovered about Luther and posted online.

Well, obscure facts are always interesting, but again, keep them within their contexts. There is no reason to lead others to assume something that isn't there, whether that be with that be with Wesley, Luther, or whomever.

It was the Methodist writer who made the statement about Wesley's views. I'm simply reporting it. I could be an atheist studying comparative religion and do the same thing. Facts is facts.

Not everything has to be hyper-polemical. People make it that way by their reactions, but that is not my problem. It's simply something I have to deal with when I discover interesting facts.

I understand that Dave. Polemics aside, but you wouldn't have posted these if purgatory wasn't factoring in somehow, someway. I am merely pointing out to your readers that it doesn't generate any pause for purgatory. Believing in an intermediate state. I mean, so what! Wesley's eschatology is similar to that of the Greek Orthodox in that Abraham's Bosom is alive and well and the righteous recieve a paradaisical "foretaste", until the Resurrection, when they can enter heaven. Yet, is it purgatorial to Wesley? That remains to be seen.

Purgatory is only remotely implicated (a couple times removed). What this does is establish an antecedent premise that is also necessary in order to believe in purgatory (that there is a third state besides heaven and hell after death). Wesley's view and ours share a common premise that is rejected by Reformed / Baptists, etc.

I get accused all the time of supposedly thinking I am proving something that I made no claim to having proven. So it is good to be able to clarify that under your questioning.

Purgatory is only remotely implicated (a couple times removed). What this does is establish an antecedent premise that is also necessary in order to believe in purgatory (that there is a third state besides heaven and hell after death). Wesley's view and ours share a common premise that is rejected by Reformed / Baptists, etc.

I don't agree. One can believe in a state, where the souls of the righteous dead abided before the ascension of Christ, without getting into forlorned conclusions about "intermediate states" and their relevance to an alleged purgatory. To bring it back home, Wesley didn't believe in a purgatory, but believed that no one enters heaven prior to the resurrection, but abides in Abraham's Bosom until then. If a "Reformed/Baptist" believed in an intermediate state prior to Christ or one that is still extant until the resurrection, it, in no way, means that purgatory has now gathered some validity. It's a bit of a smokescreen to say otherwise.

I get accused all the time of supposedly thinking I am proving something that I made no claim to having proven. So it is good to be able to clarify that under your questioning.

I don't think anyone accused you of this. I just think that one should qualify the intent of the posting, especially in light of the dynamics (a Protestant who believed in an intermediate state). My purpose is to clarify that believing in an intermediate state doesn't impact purgatory in any way, shape, or form.

"What this does is establish an antecedent premise . . . (that there is a third state besides heaven and hell after death). Wesley's view and ours share a common premise that is rejected by Reformed / Baptists, etc."

I don't know what is so difficult to understand about this. There are subtleties, but now that I have repeatedly clarified, there shouldn't be any mystery or confusion anymore. Yet you repeated my sentiment back to me, making out that there is some difference.

Wesley's statements prove nothing directly about purgatory; I agree; never stated otherwise. The two original posts never mentioned the word "purgatory." But it does show that Wesley and Catholics share a key premise (one denied by most Protestants) that is needed in order to believe in purgatory (what is in the parentheses above).

Apart from questions of proof and demonstration, I disagree that Wesley's opinion has nothing whatever to do with purgatory because the one Methodist writer stated that he believed in some sort of increase of holiness after death, which is precisely the aim and goal of purgatory. In that sense, then, there is an affinity beyond mere adoption of the notion of a third state after death. You don't want to see it, but it is there, nonetheless.

Wesleyan theologian Jerry Walls makes some of the same connections here that I would make, in an excellent article in First Things (April 2002), entitled "Purgatory for Everyone":

"It is just this sort of consideration that led Wesley to insist that sanctificationmust normally be preceded by a significant period of growth and maturation. Without this process, one is not prepared to receive the fullness of grace sanctificationrepresents. If this basic line of thought is correct, there is good reason to think that something like the traditional notion of purgatory is indeed necessaryfor those who have not experienced significant growth and moral progress.

"The classical notion of purgatory also seems necessary to a related issue in the process of sanctification: our free participation in it. Many Christiantheologians have held that our necessary cooperation in our transformation constitutesthe only satisfactory explanation for the bewildering array of good and evil in the world. God takes our freedom seriously and is patient with it; He recognizesthat even those who have made an initial decision to follow His will often make only sporadic or inconsistent progress in carrying out their resolution. Inthis view, while it is God who enables and elicits our transformation each stepof the way, our cooperation with His will is necessary to our sanctification.

"Now if God deals with us this way in this life, it is reasonable to think He will continue to do so in the next life until our perfection is achieved. Indeed, the point should be put more strongly than this."

http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/01/purgatory-for-everyone-49

You don't see this, because Baptist presuppositions about justification, sanctification and the afterlife do not allow these categories, but Anglican and Methodist and Wesleyan and pentecostal-holiness systems of theology do, so it is thinkable and conceivable for a guy like this.

"While the existence of purgatory is denied in the Twenty-five Articles (Article XIV), an intermediate state of purification, for persons who never heard of Christ, is admitted today by some Methodists."

Dave, all you keep doing is disconnecting what I'm saying by asserting that your intent was to show that a Protestant could believe in an "intermediate state." I haven't denied that one could, as Wesley obviously did, thus I don't know why you padded this with Wall's article (which I have) and the others. Again, I have stated my premise very simply, that the only reason you posted your article was to bring relevance to purgatory, of which I'm sure your readers made the connection. Yet, I wanted to qualify your article a bit by stating that Wesley didn't believe in a purgatory and that his view seems precariously close to what the Greek Orthodox teach. I also wanted to point out that, such a belief isn't as detestable as you would make it seem, especially if one views it as a part of Sheol where the souls of the righteous existed until the ascension of Christ. In other words, it has no purgatorial connotations; neither does it give the "intermediate state" argument much relevance. What is it so hard for you to understand?

the only reason you posted your article was to bring relevance to purgatory

That clearly is not the only reason he posted this. It's not even clear that it's even one of his reasons. As far as I can make out, he was showing that Wesley held certain beliefs or premises in common with Catholicism, and that his beliefs on santification and the intermediate state were closer to the historic Christian teaching than are Reformed beliefs.

--- Marcus Grodi (director of The Coming Home Network, and host of the EWTN television show: The Journey Home)

I highly recommend his work, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, which I find to be thoroughly orthodox, well-written, and effective for the purpose of making Catholic truth more understandable and accessible to the public at large.

God bless you in your indefatigable labors on behalf of the Faith! Only God knows how many lives your efforts have touched with the truth. . . . God bless you and give you joy and strength in persevering in your important ministry.

There is someone out there who says what I have to say much better than I ever could -- the smartest Catholic apologist I know of -- Dave Armstrong.

--- Amy Welborn (Catholic author and blogmaster)

I love your books, love your site, love everything you do. God bless you in your work. I'm very grateful for all you've done, and for all you make available. If someone pitches a hard question at me, I go first to your site. Then I send the questioner directly to the page that best answers the question. I know it's going to be on your site.

--- Mike Aquilina (Catholic apologist and author of several books)

People regularly tell me how much they appreciate your work. This new book sounds very useful. Your website is incredible and I recommend it regularly to new Catholics.

--- Al Kresta (Host of Kresta in the Afternoon [EWTN], author of Why Do Catholics Genuflect? and other books)

Dave Armstrong's book A Biblical Defense of Catholicism was one of the first Catholic apologetics books that I read when I was exploring Catholicism. Ever since then, I have continued to appreciate how he articulates the Catholic Faith through his blog and books. I still visit his site when I need a great quote or clarification regarding anything . . . Dave is one of the best cyber-apologists out there.--- Dr. Taylor Marshall (apologist and author of The Crucified Rabbi)

I love how Dave makes so much use of the Scriptures in his arguments, showing that the Bible is fully compatible with Catholicism, even more plausibly so than it is with Protestantism.. . . Dave is the hardest working Catholic apologist I know. He is an inspiration to me.

--- Devin Rose (apologist and author of The Protestant's Dilemma, 28 May 2012 and 30 Aug. 2013)Dave Armstrong['s] website is an amazing treasure trove representing hours–yea a lifetime of material gathered to defend Catholic doctrine. Over the years Dave has gathered the evidence for Catholic teaching from just about every source imaginable. He has the strength not only to understand the Catholic faith, but to understand the subtleties and arguments of his Protestant opponents.--- Fr. Dwight Longenecker (author and prominent blogmaster, 6-29-12)

You are a very friendly adversary who really does try to do all things with gentleness and respect. For this I praise God.--- Nathan Rinne (Lutheran apologist [LC-MS] )

You are one of the most thoughtful and careful apologists out there.

Dave, I disagree with you a lot, but you're honorable and gentlemanly, and you really care about truth. Also, I often learn from you, even with regard to my own field. [1-7-14]

--- Dr. Edwin W. Tait (Anglican Church historian)

Dave Armstrong writes me really nice letters when I ask questions. . . . Really, his notes to me are always first class and very respectful and helpful. . . . Dave Armstrong has continued to answer my questions in respectful and helpful ways. I thank the Lord for him.

--- The late Michael Spencer (evangelical Protestant), aka "The Internet Monk", on the Boar's Head Tavern site, 27 and 29 September 2007

Dave Armstrong is a former Protestant Catholic who is in fact blessedly free of the kind of "any enemy of Protestantism is a friend of mine" coalition-building . . . he's pro-Catholic (naturally) without being anti-Protestant (or anti-Orthodox, for that matter).

---"CPA": Lutheran professor of history [seehis site]: unsolicited remarks of 12 July 2005

I am reading your stuff since I think it is the most thorough and perhaps the best defense of Catholicism out there . . . Dave has been nothing but respectful and kind to me. He has shown me great respect despite knowing full well that I disagree with him on the essential issues.

Dave has been a full-time apologist for years. He’s done much good for thousands of people.

You have a lot of good things to say, and you're industrious. Your content often is great. You've done yeoman work over the decades, and many more people [should] profit from your writing. They need what you have to say.--- Karl Keating (founder and director of Catholic Answers, the largest Catholic apologetics organization in the world; 5 Sep. 2013 and 1 Jan. 2015)

Whether one agrees with Dave's take on everything or not, everyone should take it quite seriously, because he presents his arguments formidably.

I like the way you present your stuff Dave ... 99% of the time.--- Protestant Dave Scott, 4-22-14 on my personal Facebook page.

Who is this Dave Armstrong? What is he really like? Well, he is affable, gentle, sweet, easily pleased, very appreciative, and affectionate . . . I was totally unprepared for the real guy. He's a teddy bear, cuddly and sweet. Doesn't interrupt, sits quietly and respectfully as his wife and/or another woman speaks at length. Doesn't dominate the conversation. Just pleasantly, cheerfully enjoys whatever is going on about him at the moment and lovingly affirms those in his presence. Most of the time he has a relaxed, sweet smile.

--- Becky Mayhew (Catholic), 9 May 2009, on the Coming Home Network Forum, after meeting me in person.

Every so often, I recommend great apostolates, websites, etc. And I am very careful to recommend only the very best that are entirely Catholic and in union with the Church. Dave Armstrong’s Biblical Evidence for Catholicism site is one of those. It is a veritable treasure chest of information. Dave is thorough in his research, relentlessly orthodox, and very easy to read.

Discussions with you are always a pleasure, agreeing or disagreeing; that is a rarity these days.

--- David Hemlock (Eastern Orthodox Christian), 4 November 2014.

What I've appreciated, Dave, is that you can both dish out and take argumentative points without taking things personally. Very few people can do that on the Internet. I appreciate hard-hitting debate that isn't taken personally.

--- Dr. Lydia McGrew (Anglican), 12 November 2014.

Dave Armstrong is a friend of mine with whom I've had many discussions. He is a prolific Catholic writer and apologist. If you want to know what the Catholic Church really believes, Dave is a good choice. Dave and I have our disagreements, but I'll put my arm around him and consider him a brother. There is too much dishonesty among all sides in stating what the "other side" believes. I'll respect someone who states fairly what the other believes.

Recommended Catholic Apologetics Links and Icons

Protestantism: Critical Reflections of an Ecumenical Catholic

Orthodoxy & Citation Permission

To the best of my knowledge, all of my theological writing is "orthodox" and not contrary to the official dogmatic and magisterial teaching of the Catholic Church. In the event of any (unintentional) doctrinal or moral error on my part having been undeniably demonstrated to be contrary to the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church, I will gladly and wholeheartedly submit to the authority and wisdom of the Church (Matthew 28:18-20; 1 Timothy 3:15).

All material contained herein is written by Dave Armstrong (all rights reserved) unless otherwise noted. Please retain full copyright, URL, and author information when downloading and/or forwarding this material to others. This information is intended for educational, spiritual enrichment, recreational, non-profitpurposes only, and is not to be exchanged for monetary compensation under any circumstances (Exodus 20:15-16).